Why Do Some Employees Engage in Organisational Misbehaviour - Essay Example

Running head: Organisational Misbehaviour Organisational Misbehaviour [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Organisational Misbehaviour Introduction There are different kinds of organisational misbehaviour1 which turn out to be persistent and prove to an expensive trouble for the work organisations.2 Therefore, it is not surprising that organisation scientists and practitioners are gaining more and more interest in the trends and the elements that lead to these kinds of behaviour and have an impact on the organisations and its members.3 According to Vardi and Wiener4 there are two broad categories for the experience of misbehaviour at workplace, namely, Individual factors (that cover elements such as discontent, character) and organisational factors (in this group come elements like aims, environment, control mechanisms). These authors believe that the organisation’s value system which is present at the centre of the culture and setting has a great impact on individual behaviour. Organisational Misbehaviour The term “Organisational Misbehaviour” was first brought about by Vardi and Wiener5 and they explained it in the following words: “any intentional action by members of organizations that defies and violates (a) shared organizational norms and expectations, and/or (b) core societal values, mores and standards of proper conduct" (p. 151). For determining if a particular kind of behaviour would be categorised as OMB, the determination has to be by taking into account the norms of that particular organisation and the norms that the law articulates (like sexual harassment). In theoretical terms OMB is a product of the interface among elements at the individual level and elements at the organisational level.6 Therefore, the motives, the incidence, and force vary and change in various situations. There was a proposition of a motivational structure for OMB by Vardi and Wiener7 and this framework defines individual and organisational experiences of intending to indulge in misbehaviour. Individual Factors There is a difference in the tendency of individuals of engaging in the types of misconduct as have been conceptualized in the model by Vardi and Wiener8 (1996). The difference exists in regards to values as well as the attitudes, and characteristics. In their model there is a focus on five kinds of individual differences and these have been discussed in the following paragraphs. Personality There are two personality variables that have an effect on each of the two motivational components, and thus also on the intention of getting involved in OMB. Those two variables can have an impact on each of the normative procedures of value internalization and the “calculations” that have to be done when forming instrumental beliefs regarding the individual interests. One happens to be the degree of moral development that takes place in an organization member9. The other is the level of sociopathic inclination, which means the situation features through disrespect toward the societal norms and obligations without having any guilt. However, and obviously, the degrees of sociopathic inclinations are normally within limits and the extreme degrees can be found in only a handful of staff. Person-organization Value Congruence In this group of antecedent comes the level to which individual values are held by a person and these values are similar to those observed in the organisation. The more similar the values are, the more probable it is for the member to recognize with a referent social unit and to be directed by the values it has10. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that such a variable is an indication of a powerful contribution toward the normative section of the model, and thus, of OMB. Generalized Value of Loyalty and Duty This is a personal value and it is attained through primary socialization. This is a representation of a general sense of responsibility and commitment, which means an individual having the belief that they have a moral duty of exhibiting dedication in each of the important social states wherein they take part11. Not taking into consideration the other values, those individuals who have a high ranking on Generalized Loyalty and Duty are inclined toward identifying with their organisation and behaving in accordance to the norms. Thus, such a variable is also a representation of a powerful contribution toward the normative component of the model. Personal Circumstances In the case of an individual facing a compelling need or deprivation-material or otherwise, it may be possible that the individual tends to get involved with misbehaviour as through this he/she might be satisfied in their needs12. On the other hand, there may not be an inclination in workers of misbehaving when they expect that they may lose membership. Therefore, particular individual situations have a partial determination in a person’s inclinations of getting engaged in OMB, mainly through shaping instrumental beliefs regarding the worth of the resulting situations in some kind of misbehaviour. Dissatisfaction of Personal Needs by the Organization In the case of a person seeing that he is not being treated fairly by his organisation, he more and more tends to misbehave to benefit himself13. In a roundabout manner this element can have an impact on the manner in which organisational expectations are to be learned and internalized; the probability of a member succeeding in socializing by and for identifying with an organisation is not much in the case of the member anticipating exploitation of himself as well as the other members of the organisation. Therefore, dissatisfaction of needs by an organisation mainly has an effect on the instrumental part of motivation to indulge in misbehaviour but it can, in an indirect way, also lead to the normative forces. Organizational Factors The difference among organisations lies in regards to the contextual situation, at both the task and organisation levels, which can have an effect on the tendency of a person to get involved with work which has a connection with misbehaviour. Below are given five such kinds of elements. Built-in Opportunity There are particular work organisations and tasks that consist of functions in which it is naturally difficult to control; for instance, “home delivery, operating cash registers, professional or food services, operations where cash transactions cannot be directly monitored by receipts, and inventory counts”14. Actually, several tasks may involve certain built-in opportunity for misusing or exploiting different organisational resources (like the office equipment). The degree to which these kinds of built-in opportunities would be present can get into the instrumental calculations related to the gains, results, and risks of exploiting these kinds of opportunities15. Control Systems Not taking into account the intrinsic opportunity, control systems like assessment, reward and disciplinary mechanisms, or singular monitoring arrangements, in certain companies, tend to be more efficient at controlling conduct as compared to the others. Domineering as well as negligent controls can lead to OMB. Therefore, control mechanisms, particularly the ones that are a representation of each of these extremes, can possibly impact directly on the person’s instrumental reflections about whether he should be getting involved in or refraining from misbehaviour. Organizational Culture There is a common idea of organisational culture being an assemble that denotes the degree to the individuals share the major organisational values16. There are many authors17 who have shown the strength of culture as a devise made use of by particular leading groups (like the top management) deliberately for shaping the values of the other members. There are other authors18 who started developing an idea about cultural dynamism which investigates into the interaction of elements of culture over time. Whatever way it is taken, “organisational culture” can make up a significant normative impact on the tendency of members of getting involved with misconduct. For example, one model by Trevino19 puts forward a direct relation between the organisational culture variable and immoral decision conduct of managers. Organizational Cohesiveness This element can be much congruent to organisation culture in regards to its impacts on misconduct, because in quite consistent units the pressures of adhering to the norms of behaviour are a lot20. This factor might be stronger. In accordance with this, this feature of the organisation can be regarded as an important experience which can powerfully lead to the normative section of the OMB model. Organizational Goals If its definition is taken into account, organisational goals are very much linked to organisational values and anticipations and, thus, there is a probability of having an impact on the normative motivational component in the model. Moreover, organisational goals can in a direct manner initiate misconduct, especially in the case of very challenging and impractical goals. Being Nice: The Power of Organizational Justice A persistent concept to be seen in organisations as well as their leaders is to be just and encourage their workers. It was to be seen that those organisations where fairness and support was practised saw lesser employee absence and delayed happenings, fewer stealing on the part of the worker, and less aggression at the workplace. According to the early evidence it can be said that there is no tolerance of misconduct in fair organisations. It is in the advantage of the organisation if it treats its employees well. This turns out to be good marketing for customers, for the prospective staff, and for investors. Along with this it also assists in reducing the probability of the existing employees engaging in behaviours that would lead to harm for the organisation. Organisational Justice is the body of research available which examines the way employees evaluate the aspects of fairness in an organisation. The broad concept behind Organisational Justice is that workers actively observe the organisations; they see the way rewards and punishments are given to the workers. The employees may see such kind of allocations as just or unjust and their perception depends on three concepts, namely, distributive justice (if the recipient of the reward or punishment actually deserves it), procedural justice (if the procedure of the giving of the reward/punishment was just), and interactional justice (if the person was given his due respect)21. Recommendation for Managers Some lessons that managers can learn from literature are to observe distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. In the first kind a manager should allocate rewards equally and without any politics involved, and should inform the employees of the basis of rewards much before time. Distributive justice refers to whether an outcome is thought to be fair enough or not. Such outcomes are not restricted to money and monetary rewards; there can alo be decisions about promotions and who is to be fired. The second type, procedural justice, should be followed by the managers by allowing the employee to voice their opinions and making sure about the validity and impartiality of the processes. In the third kind a manager is required to respect the others and at times do have a face to face talk with the juniors. He should put forward his message that there would be no tolerance of misconduct of the employees. The other findings have been that managers should contribute toward a reduction in frustration, for instance by making resources easily available22. They should form and then also implement a detailed ethics program which would have clearly tied rewards and punishments. Equality refers to each of the persons getting an equal share of the results; for instance, each employee is given the same amount for a year-end bonus. Equity refers to the distribution of the outcome in accordance with the efforts, skills and time that an employee has spent in the organisation. For instance, the year-end bonus depends on how long the person has worked for in the organisation. Rewarding according to the needs means that the person who has more of a requirement of something would get the most out of it. However, this kind of distribution results in dispiritedness in employees as they see that they are not being treated fairly. It had been seen in the garment workers study which Everton, Jolton and Mastrangelo23 (2005) presented previously, that the people who were made to work where there was not much profit to be earned had more of a tendency to steal, which could be because of their perceiving the way of the distribution of the pay. In a work that the same authors24 presented it was seen that if there is a discourteous environment, there is more likelihood of there being rude behaviours. Another observation made was that the discourteous employees could overly inspect their work lives and contribute toward great levels of hostility. On the other hand, there is evidence which proves that if the employees are supported emotionally and informationally, there can be a reduction of the dangerous impacts of hostility. Conclusion There can be a common occurrence of employee misbehaviours and this can lead to the organisation having to bear huge amount of money. According to research misconduct and rude behaviour can lead to “decreased job satisfaction, increased turnover, psychological stress, and deviant behaviour”25 toward the organisation or people. Moreover, there is also evidence relating to the fact that due to uncivil happenings there can be an escalation in relentlessness and incidence and they could contribute toward the other various kinds of deviance such as violent behaviours. Every effort has to be made in order to avoid such organisational misbehaviours. Managers should be role models as if they themselves would act respectfully his employees would follow him. In the case of the manager attending civility training, it is likely that his employees would also do so since they would feel that it is an important part. The organisation would be advantageous if it is ensured that even the mildest misconduct is not ignored and is taken account of. A manager can do much if he wishes to decrease deviant behaviours from his employees: he should be just, sympathetic, instructive and helpful. References Ackroyd, S., & P. Thompson, P. (1998). Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage. Analoui, F. and A. Kakabadse (1992), ‘Unconventional practices at work: Insight and analysis through participant observation’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 7, 1-31. Astor, S. D. (1972), ‘Twenty steps for preventing theft in business’. Management Review, 61, 34-35. Chatman, J. A. (1989), ‘Improving Interactional Organizational Re-search: A Model of Person-organization Fit’. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349. Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), ‘Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-45. Everton, W. J., Jolton, J. A., and Mastrangelo, P. M. (2007). ‘Be nice and fair or else: understanding reasons for employees’ deviant behaviors’. Journal of Management Development, 26(2): 117-131. Giacalone, R. A. and J. Greenberg (1997). Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft, in R. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (eds), Antisocial Behaviour in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hatch, M. J. (1993), ‘The Dynamics of Organizational Culture’. Academy of Management Review, 18, 657-693. Janis, I. L. (1982), Victims of Groupthink (revised edition). Boston, - MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Kohlberg, L. (1969), "Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-developmental Approach," in T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Kunda, G. (1992), Engineering Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Merton, R. T. (1938), ‘Social Structure and Anomie’. American Sociological Review, 6, 672-682. Robinson, S. L. and J. Greenberg: 1998, ‘Employees Behaving Badly: Dimensions, Determinants and Dilemmas in the Study of Workplace Deviance’, in C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds.), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Volume 5. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Trevino, L. K. (1986), ‘Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-situation Interactionist Model’. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617. Vardi, Y. and Y. Wiener. (1996), ‘Misbehavior in Organizations: A Motivational Framework’, Organization Science 7, 151–165. Wiener, Y. (1982), ‘Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View’. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428. Wiener, Y. (1988), ‘Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and Cultural Change and Maintenance’. Academy of Management Review, 13, 534-545. Read More